Postoperative pain in primary root canal treatments after Er: YAG laser-activated irrigation: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

IF 2.1 4区 医学 Q3 ENGINEERING, BIOMEDICAL
Luiza Souza Schmidt, Luise Dos Santos Ferreira, Fernando Antonio Vargas Junior, Anelise Fernandes Montagner, Wellington Luiz de Oliveira da Rosa, Lucas Peixoto de Araújo, Carolina Clasen Vieira
{"title":"Postoperative pain in primary root canal treatments after Er: YAG laser-activated irrigation: a systematic review and meta-analysis.","authors":"Luiza Souza Schmidt, Luise Dos Santos Ferreira, Fernando Antonio Vargas Junior, Anelise Fernandes Montagner, Wellington Luiz de Oliveira da Rosa, Lucas Peixoto de Araújo, Carolina Clasen Vieira","doi":"10.1007/s10103-024-04271-0","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>This systematic review aimed to compare postoperative pain in endodontic treatments using PIPS Er: YAG laser-activated irrigation (LAI) versus conventional needle irrigation. An electronic search was conducted to identify randomized clinical trials (RCT) investigating postoperative pain in patients who underwent root canal treatments in permanent teeth using PIPS Er: YAG laser-activated irrigation or conventional needle irrigation. Two reviewers performed study selection, data extraction, risk of bias assessment (RoB 2.0 tool), and the certainty of evidence (GRADE). The meta-analyses were conducted using Review Manager software (p ≤ 0.05). The mean difference (MD) was chosen as the effect measure, and a random-effect model was employed, along with a 95% confidence interval (CI). The search identified 2864 records, and after selecting, three RCTs were included in the quantitative analysis. The meta-analysis showed a difference in postoperative pain according to the evaluation time. The subgroup meta-analysis revealed that the PIPS Er:YAG showed a significant reduction in the postoperative pain in the 48 hours (MD = -0.78; 95% CI [-1.39, -0.17]; p = 0.01; I² = 69%) compared to the control group. However, no statiscally significant results were found when assessing postoperative pain after 1, 3 and 7 days (95% CI; p > 0.05). The PIPS Er: YAG laser-activated irrigation reduced postoperative pain at 2 days following primary endodontic treatment. However, the certainty of the evidence is low and further RCTs are needed to confirm these results and avoid bias and confounding factors. Registration: PROSPERO registration number: CRD42023432499.</p>","PeriodicalId":17978,"journal":{"name":"Lasers in Medical Science","volume":"40 1","pages":"37"},"PeriodicalIF":2.1000,"publicationDate":"2025-01-24","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Lasers in Medical Science","FirstCategoryId":"5","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s10103-024-04271-0","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"ENGINEERING, BIOMEDICAL","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

This systematic review aimed to compare postoperative pain in endodontic treatments using PIPS Er: YAG laser-activated irrigation (LAI) versus conventional needle irrigation. An electronic search was conducted to identify randomized clinical trials (RCT) investigating postoperative pain in patients who underwent root canal treatments in permanent teeth using PIPS Er: YAG laser-activated irrigation or conventional needle irrigation. Two reviewers performed study selection, data extraction, risk of bias assessment (RoB 2.0 tool), and the certainty of evidence (GRADE). The meta-analyses were conducted using Review Manager software (p ≤ 0.05). The mean difference (MD) was chosen as the effect measure, and a random-effect model was employed, along with a 95% confidence interval (CI). The search identified 2864 records, and after selecting, three RCTs were included in the quantitative analysis. The meta-analysis showed a difference in postoperative pain according to the evaluation time. The subgroup meta-analysis revealed that the PIPS Er:YAG showed a significant reduction in the postoperative pain in the 48 hours (MD = -0.78; 95% CI [-1.39, -0.17]; p = 0.01; I² = 69%) compared to the control group. However, no statiscally significant results were found when assessing postoperative pain after 1, 3 and 7 days (95% CI; p > 0.05). The PIPS Er: YAG laser-activated irrigation reduced postoperative pain at 2 days following primary endodontic treatment. However, the certainty of the evidence is low and further RCTs are needed to confirm these results and avoid bias and confounding factors. Registration: PROSPERO registration number: CRD42023432499.

求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Lasers in Medical Science
Lasers in Medical Science 医学-工程:生物医学
CiteScore
4.50
自引率
4.80%
发文量
192
审稿时长
3-8 weeks
期刊介绍: Lasers in Medical Science (LIMS) has established itself as the leading international journal in the rapidly expanding field of medical and dental applications of lasers and light. It provides a forum for the publication of papers on the technical, experimental, and clinical aspects of the use of medical lasers, including lasers in surgery, endoscopy, angioplasty, hyperthermia of tumors, and photodynamic therapy. In addition to medical laser applications, LIMS presents high-quality manuscripts on a wide range of dental topics, including aesthetic dentistry, endodontics, orthodontics, and prosthodontics. The journal publishes articles on the medical and dental applications of novel laser technologies, light delivery systems, sensors to monitor laser effects, basic laser-tissue interactions, and the modeling of laser-tissue interactions. Beyond laser applications, LIMS features articles relating to the use of non-laser light-tissue interactions.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信